tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 12, 2013 7:00am-10:00am EST
article on how the de- institutionalization of psychiatric patients 50 years ago is affecting mental patients today. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning and welcome on this tuesday, for every 12, 2013. president obama traveled -- will travel down pennsylvania avenue tonight to the u.s. capitol building to deliver the first state of the union address of his second term at 9:00 eastern. c-span coverage begins at 8:00 tonight. we would like to hear from you this morning. how much reducing state of the union addresses matter? here are the numbers to call --
promised and what was positioned and hold that person accountable. in so many instances you hear president on both sides talk a very big game. and then they failed to deliver. i am a little disappointed but there's not a greater body of media reporting that says this is what that person said at the state of the union and then 364 days later, this is what it has materialized as it relates to the positions that person took 364 days prior. host: what do you remember about last year's state of the union? caller: it does 9. -- does not. the media has an opportunity to go back and review and misstatements and the promises, but we really lose that
opportunity -- and part of it's on me because i've not gone back. but in the other instances, why have we not seen more in the media and that this is what president obama said he was going to do the first year and this is what he delivered on, based on last year's promises. it is not specific to president obama. state of the unions in general, there are a lot of promises made. i think the media gives the president a pass when it comes to reviewing what promises worth 364 days after the fact. host: let's look at some of what happened last year in the president's speech. the washington post says --
clinton, but the status of the union addresses made me warm up to him. it was the way he spoke that changed the way i looked at him as a president. i think it's a great opportunity for a president to bring people together if they can say the right things and reach out across the aisle. host: there was a little written about president clinton in the "new york times this morning. this report --
arnold's in tennessee on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate you taking my phone call. i just wanted to say something that got my attention last year during the state of the union address was there were some streaks of light that came across the screen that looked -- i had never seen that happen before in any of the state of the union addresses. they looked almost spiritual. some people accused obama of staging that. d like something from god or something. would it be ok if i shared a web site that i have?
host: is it relevant to our conversation, arnold? caller: yes. i believe it is relevant, because we are living in some very interesting times now. on pages 31 and 32 of my free book -- there is no charge for this -- you can see something that is either a coincidence or a sign from god that god is trying to speak to us now. we pray to god all the time. they have these prayer breakfasts up in washington and stuff. anyway, my web site is
godislove.org. host: let's take a look at a couple spiritual stories in the news. we see a lot of newspapers on their front page looking at pope benedict becoming the first pontiff to step down in six centuries, citing a gentleness. a papal transition. that the wall street journal. "usa today" has -- it looks at moving into the 21st century. it reminds us of a timeline.
a couple other looks at this and how it factors into international global politics as well as the future of the catholic church. this in the wall street journal looks at the vast constituency, where catholics live, and the history of cardinals. most of them are european, but the church has been reaching out. the question is who will be the next pope. a look at some other stories in the news this morning. s one piece coming to us which we will talk more about as the day goes on. who gets to sit at the isle of the state of the human. it is a competitive effort. lawmakers wait hours for just a few seconds of the presidential showtime. a lawmaker we will have later on this week as a guest, congressman eliot engel. this is from a prior state of
the union, he was one of the lawmakers who waited hours to sit on the aisle to greet the president as he walks into the house chamber. we're asking you whether you think state of the union addresses a matter. let's hear from joe in iowa on our independent line. caller: hi, libya. -- libby. the state of the union should been inspirational to all the citizens of this country. when all the corporations keep referring tro americans as consumers, that sounds like something you would call [indiscernible]. the state of the union is a group of people, if we lose our
unions in this country, we will lose the middle class. everybody needs to to do their part. host: in pennsylvania, a republican caller, james. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. i want to say that i am a registered republican, begrudgingly voting for john mccain and mitt romney. there's no conservative movement left. i want to say that i am officially done and my two brothers are with their families with republicans. i guess i call myself a man without a party. marco rubio will give the response in spanish and english. this is just -- it started with karl rove, the architect, that
little nerd -- if i see him one more time on tv -- is the architect of the destruction of the gop. he gave us obama. the idea of reaching out and becoming democrats. what democrats aren't are people who believe in a group identity and hyphenated americanism. we conservatives believe in assimilation. that's why he's not going to give a response in german or italian. we will hear all the lofty platitudes and trite things from obama about a nation of immigrants. it was a somewhat perverse people being melted down by the fires of assimilation and being made similar -- it was a people meltedrdiverse
down by the fires of assimilation. nobody would know marco rubio. he looks like the beaver. i will not follow him because he is a trendy minority. having to reach out to people, that is racial extortion. host: have you looked at when he believes in and 20 plans to talk about tonight? caller: i know all about his immigration platform. the fact that we have to have some trendy minority to speak for us because we as white americans no longer have a right to speak for ourselves -- representt: he does not you as a republican? caller: when he bows to the concept of groupthink and hyphenated americanism, he's no longer a conservative. host: let's look at what senator rubio plans to do tonight.
is the headline in the wall street journal -- c-span will be broadcasting senator rubio's address after the state of the union tonight. let's hear from jacob in richmond, virginia, republican. caller: i am a kid and a conservative. state of the union addresses don't matter because we already know what the president campaigned on. we don't need to restate.
he has said bunches of times about he wants to ban assault weapons and to raise taxes on $250,000 a year. if we don't need to hear that again. host: will you be watching for senator rubio's response? caller: i hope to. i may not. host: we will also hear from senator rand paul of kentucky cal, who will give another republican response > how about that? caller: maybe. it depends. at other things to do because i'm a kid. host: how old are you? caller: i will be 13 in a couple months. we need to get kids into politics. that's why they are all turning into -- especially college kids are turning into democrats, because it seems to be the cool thing to do. my cousin voted for obama
because it is the cool thing to. host: jacob, we will have all the features on our website if you don't get a chance to watch them tonight with your busy schedule. c-span.org. we will start coverage this evening at 8:00. we will cover the state of the union live and we will to be broadcast for west coast audiences this evening. let's look at some historical facts of the state of the union address. it was first broadcast by radio by president coolidge in 1923. the first televised broadcasts was by president harry truman in 1947. the first web broadcast was george w. bush in 2002. it also have this feature our facebook page. we have a poll going on asking whether using state of the union addresses matter. as well we have a state of the unit and share button or you can put this on your facebook page. -- status of the union share
button. e have a few more no's than yeses on the question of whether the state of the union matters. matalin says -- and on twitter -- montee -- john is our next caller in pennsylvania, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on the previous caller on whether it's school or not to vote for certain party. i believe is cool just to vote. either way, it is important.
i also believe that the state of the union is very important. it gives the president the opportunity to proclaim what he plans to do in the coming years as well as give some insight information. host: davis is a democrat from albuquerque. caller: hi. the state of the union is important. the president steps to address congress and the american people and say this is where we have been and this is where we are and what is going on. i believe karl rove and rush limbaugh are doing a great job of destroying the republican party. we need the republican party. we need the opposition. for the 12-year-old who called,
he should go back and play marbles. when you are 18, you will get old enough quick enough. let's have grownups to run this country. host: if you would like to join the conversation, call -- we are asking whether you think the state of the union address matters? this one in particular or addresses historically? the "washington times" --
looking at a sidebar story, immigration in presidential speeches. tom in kansas, independent. do you think these speeches matter? caller: no. they're all lies, because there's nothing that he has followed through on. host: president obama in particular? or do the speech is not matter? caller: it's just one lie on top of another and it does not
matter. it's just a lie to keep people going and keep pretenses going. as far as immigration, on rubio and obama, they should make it mandatory all illegals in the u.s. 46 and under should get of three year to five-year stay in the military and then they could get their green card. do jobs overseas, and overseas. and we have border security in the united states and we have plenty of military use for illegals to become legal in the long run. host: cindy on twitter -- republican david, falls church, virginia. caller: hi. i agree with the last caller mentioned that the state of the union address is important.
i am republican and i agree it's very important to watch as well. it is also important to come together in this country. the other caller who was condescending towards the 12- year-old, that's out of place. we don't need to act like that. this is a country for all of us. i really want to highlight the point that republicans should be strong and not apologize for what they believe in. host: the speech from senator rubio tonight and we will also hear from senator rand paul of kentucky. do you plan to pay attention to that one? caller: i do. both will be important. host: this will be a tea party rebuttal. do you to think there's room for both of these speeches or do they compete with each other? caller: i don't think they shouldn't. -- should. we're seeing an effort in the
republican party to find a sense of itself right now. why don't they are contradictory. i think the tea party is standing on republican principles. this divergence might be artificially manufactured, some say, but i think that they complement each other. host: here's a story from last week -- c-span will bring you coverage onrand paul's speech later tonight, but it will also be on our website, c-span.org. paul is a democrat in western virginia. caller: good morning.
i would like to state that the real live in a rapidly changing world, even though i do support the second amendment, sometimes we do have to make some concessions. that is just one relevant fact of our role today. world.ur we had unconfirmed nuclear tests in north korea yesterday. we have had chinese incursions into japanese air space. we have iran and all sorts of a realities that need to be addressed. no matter how young an american citizen is, i don't see any point in discouraging them from taking an active interest in politics. host: that exchange hit home for you, the 12-year-old scholar and the response of the next caller s?
caller: jacob, i encourage him to keep looking, keep exploring, keep looking back to history to see what different ideas worked and where they worked and to keep staying involved. that is the key. that is the whole premise of popular sovereignty, to stay involved. host: you mentioned issues that face the nation internationally and domestically. we will be going to the senate armed services committee later on today a, which will have its vote on the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to be secretary of defense. we will see that at 2:30 this afternoon live on c-span3. you can also find that on our website, c-span.org. we're asking you whether stated the union addresses matter. our next caller is in des moines on our independent lineh independenti, doug. caller: good morning.
i agree with some of the previous callers stating that we are going to hear a lot of what we have already heard from the president. one of the things i would like to hear is something maybe the republicans can address, is we give all these illegal immigrants citizenship, when happens? does that not just incur more costs? if they're not able to find a job, then they're on a social program. along the same lines, what type of jobs are they going to have that will start generating more revenue for the government? i feel like it will just cause more problems for the economy and more spending to take care of more citizens. host: mary in mississippi, republican. caller: hi. i would just like to commend the
12-year-old boy that called. it's wonderful that he has an interest in politics and that he really is informed and trying to find out what is really going on in the country. i feel that is, as a republican, that is one of the problems with the democrats, they don't listen and they don't find out what is really going on. i think they voted because they thought it was cool to vote for obama. i would like to say to marco rubio that night when he's giving his rebuttal in spanish, that he encourages all the illegal aliens and even illegal aliens not to learn the english language. host: we saw a news story talking about how the senator plans to stop about other issues like education. are you looking forward to hear what else he has to say, as a republican? caller: yes, i am. i really think highly of him.
i really liked him and what he stands for. host: let's look at some other stories in the news. we mentioned senator chuck hagel's confirmation before the senate armed services committee today, rather a vote. today they will vote. we will see what happens. also, looking at the obama cabinet and the team. stepping down after four years as chief of the sba, karen mills.
we see that gop senators plan to grill jacob lew on his time at citigroup. a couple other stories in the news. north korea has said that it exploded a nuclear device on tuesday. it's the third experimental destination in a long effort to build weapons of mass destruction that the u.s. and other countries considered a serious threat. a statement from north korea's state news agency says a third nuclear test has been successfully staged. it was published three hours
afterwards. south korea, the u.s., and japan, have detected an artificial earthquake in the country, they thought. another event we are covering today on c-span, the impact of sequestration. this is before the senate armed services committee. that is on c-span3 at 9:30 this morning. we will be following that to hear more about sequestration. our question for you this morning is about state of the union speeches. do you think they matter? our next call in texas on our independent line, pete. caller: hi, libby. host: go ahead. caller: the state of the union is more hazardous and contains more pitfalls for a president than the reward canby.
we just need to look back at president bush with his initiative to social security and that kind of backfired on him. i would like to address this illegal immigration. this path to leadership and to everybody who serves in the military. there are a lot of american young people that cannot join the military. actually, the military is the best thing going for and for people who have medical problems. along the same path of illegal immigration. it is government-sponsored human trafficking, working the lines, we shouldlomatic
charge those countries for their people to come to this country. then we might get somewhere in securing our borders and being able to take care of our own folks. host: here's a couple comments on facebook -- two of our followers liked that. we have a share button at the top so you can share it on your
facebook page to tell your friends you'll be watching the state of union tonight on c- span. ralph in union springs, republican. caller: good morning. i would like to congratulate that young fellow. some of our best ideas are coming out of youngsters because they're not so jaded like a lot of adults who have been arguing over the last few years. speeches should matter. unfortunately, i feel tonight all we will hear is the same divisive rhetoric we have been hearing through the last four years, rich against poor, immigrant versus people who are not immigrants, gun owners versus people who want to take guns away. for president who came in saying he would bring the nation together, the last four years have divided us more than any i
can never in my lifetime -- that i can remember in my lifetime. host: do you have any state of the union speeches you remember? caller: the first ones i remember were during the vietnam era, under president johnson. that seemed to be the only thing you heard they after day as a kid growing up. that's the main thing people were focused on. the economy should be the thing we focus on, because that's our biggest problem. they say they will focus on the economy, but all you hear about is all the side issues that seem to divide the nation. host: is a headline in the washington times -- looking at the history of state
clear little history of state of the union speeches. jim la plata, maryland, democrat. caller: good morning. heargreat to be able to the status of the union speeches. i appreciate the youngster that is showing interest in his country. until we realize -- we have to read genesis 6:5-7, proverbs 16- 20. and revelations 22.
because hatred and racism are rampant. you have to understand that god was against all that and one suspect this will happen because of man. the republicans don't want this man to do what he wants. the state of the union is to find out where a person's mind is. i prayed that god would not let people and racism take over this country, that the protected against john mccain and sarah palin and protected us against romney and ron paul. so i pray to god that people stop and think about what is really motivating this country with hatred and racism and deception. but the state of the union is
asking-- eddie in texas, independent. caller: i think the state of the union is pretty bad right now. i don't think the president will say that. host: how much does the speech matter to you? do you pay attention to what the president says during this address? caller: yes, i do pay attention. i think everybody should pay attention. host: do you think they are a highlight of the political year, the message that comes out of the white house? caller: yes, it is hopes and wishes for the country and once he has done in the past. host: reginald's in houston, texas, independent. caller: good morning. i believe the state of the union needs to be a state of repentance for this nation, like
president lincoln did it when the civil war was going on. we're almost at the point of civil war. we need to have a day when we stop and have a day of thanksgiving, because, if we live by the sword, we will die by the sword. america will destroy itself from inside out. we should have a poor people's campaign and said today aside where we can repent from all this killing and these weapons. these are the things that will self-destruct america if it does not catch itself, because god does not have to favor on killing. america should catch itself and stop trying to be an imperialist nation and get back to godly qualities and get into a state of repentance. thank you. host: here's the latest from gallup on how president obama is rating --
speaking of the economy, you will be hearing more about the budget and economic outlook today before the senate budget committee, the director of the congressional budget office, doug elmendorf, will appear to answer questions about the cbo oppose the budget and economic outlook which was released last week. if you can find more on that on our website, c-span.org. other comments from twitter --
greg in north carolina, independent. caller: yes, ma'am. the way the president speaks, it does matter. i hope that the addresses a few things that he got started, the health care debate, and social security especially because a lot of the things people don't realize is things like social security, health care, unemployment, that does more does more for people than the people who receive it. it guess of four churches, communities, children. i hope the talks about this kind of stuff. they're not talking about cutting things like the division of motor vehicles, the national
state registry, homeland security, the patriot act. i think america is big enough to handle this stuff without those institutions. the national state registry especially. things like chris kyle, the sniper, he has done countless mission successfully. when he comes back to the united states, he gets taken out. i kind of identify with the situation. i really hope that the addresses it. thank you for c-span. host: he's talking about a former navy seal killed earlier this month in the united states and home. speaking of service overseas, president obama yesterday bestow the medal of honor on a recipient. it is a rare honor. let's look at one story about that. clinton romesha, a retired navy
staff sgt received the nation's highest military honor from president obama for defending an outpost in afghanistan. we will hear more on that in a moment. we will continue with our stated the union conversation shortly. " with a top white house and congressional reporter for their thoughts on what to expect tonight. later on, a closer look at lobbying rules for current and former members of congress. another story about staff sgt clinton romesha, a picture of his son colin walking on the stage of the east room and the white house. he was hiding behind the podium right before his father received the medal of honor,. the sergeant was a u.s. soldier who led a counterattack in afghanistan after he and his comrades were asked to defend the indefensible. let's listen to that from yesterday. [video clip] >> after receiving reports that seriously injured soldiers were at a distant battle position, a staff sergeant and his team
provided covering fire to allow the injured soldiers to safely reach the aid station. upon receipt of orders to proceed to the next objective, pushed for 100 meters under overwhelming enemy fire to recover and prevent the enemy fighters from taking the bodies of their fallen comrades staff. sergeant clinton romesha's heroic actions throughout the day long battle were critical in suppressing an amice think as far greater numbers. his extraordinary efforts gave borota the opportunity to regroup, and prepare for the counterattack if that allowed the tube to account for its personnel can secure its combat outpost. staff sergeant's discipline and extraordinary heroism above and beyond the call of duty reflect great credit upon himself, bravo troops, a third squadron, 61st cavalry regiment, for purveyed combat team, fourth infantry division, and the united states army. -- 4th brigade combat team.
union speech tonight. anita kumar, white house newspaper reporter from mcclatchy. and jonathan strong from roll call. how much do we know about what president obama plans to say tonight? guest: i think he will return to talk about the economy. that's what we're hearing from the white house. he will focus on four things and all of them will stress the economic context. energy. infrastructure, which is new roads and bridges and things like that. manufacturing. and education and making colleges more affordable. and how we to make our economy grows stronger and promotes and grow the middle class. host: is the headline in the financial times -- how much of this will echo what we heard at the inaugural address? guest: i think it will be a
little different from that. there were many comments after the inaugural address. it was very aggressive. he talked about gave rights, equal pay for women, voting rights. i think you'll see some of that, but my sense is you will see all of those pins that can come into an economic context. while he might talk about immigration, what we need to do as a country as that, it will be in the vein of how do we help the economy? host: jonathan strong? guest: i was at a retreat that the house democrats held last week in virginia. the president gave a speech to them in a preview of what he was going to say. ito quite an aggressive tone in terms of the standoff with republicans over the sequestration cuts. i was surprised at how feisty was. he said that he's more than ready to engage in a standoff with them over the cuts. he wants tax increases, a combination of tax increases and
spending cuts and the republicans just want to keep it as all spending cuts. host: if you would like to join the conversation -- do we have a sense yet of how members of congress will respond to what the president says? how much preparation can they go ahead of time to talk to paris tonight and respond tamara? guest: they are reading all the stories on what we are right thing that will be in it and they are preparing. whato bafhave to adjust for people say. most of the time you will have to react as it happens. host: we have a poll on our facebook page asking viewers whether they think state of the union addresses matter. if 57 say no.
how much do they matter in washington? guest: quite a lot. people don't really seem to remember what the president says the next day. i think the matter ended set the tone for what it's going to, again in the next few months. i was talking into some speechwriter's four past presidents who've talked a lot about how people beg to get a sentence or phrase in the state of the union address, because they will feel that will be an issue down the line, if it is just mentioned by the president. host: we are seeing stories about who might be attending the speech. guest: nancy pelosi is bringing a fourth grader who was at the newtown elementary school when the shooting occurred. a number of lawmakers are bringing people from newtown. so there's a definite focus from the congressional democrats at
least on the gun-control proposals of the president and democrats are putting four. guest: they have not announced the fullest, but we started to hear some of the names. there will be some emphasis on gun victims. the parents of the 15-year-old girl killed in chicago a week ago, they will be joining the first lady. she was killed -- she lived a mile from obama's house and she was killed in random gunfire. host: why is this significant who the guests are? guest: there have been several stories in the last few days that show the spotlight on these people. the president often mentions them in his speech. so the spotlight is really on them for about a day and then they go back to their regular life. host: our first caller is george
from florida on our republican line. good morning. caller: [indiscernible] down taxes are going -- now taxes are going to go up. to raise taxes on me will really hurt. when do we know that we are taxed enough? how high can taxes go? i don't think anyone has addressed that. it is not we anymore. it is some of us paying taxes. host: be talking about the issue of taxes and how much is too much. do you think we will hear the word "taxes" tonight from president obama? guest: no.
for some time now, democrats in general have been using a new term for tax increases, which is revenue. it sounds much nicer, like sugar to help the medicine go down. that is what he will refer to. and "a balanced approach" is the nomenclature that preferred by the president. host: here are some stories about the guests. the mother of a shooting victim in chicago will be a guest of the first lady during the state of the union tonight. there's an image of her. the announcement comes a few days after the first lady attended the teenager's funeral. also, looking at guests tonight, we see this, ted nugent plans to be there. this is a story coming to us from the "washington times.
anita kumar, congress in the representation of the battle being waged in the united states in the house chamber tonight? guest: i think we are. the guests will reflect other issues as well, immigration included, and i have heard about some people that have trouble voting on election day, particularly one woman in florida, she's 102 and had to stand in line six hours, in the miami area. i spoke with most of the guests we have talked about so far related to the gun issue. the president will talk about that although it will not be his focus. host: what else might we hear him talk about? guest: he spoke strongly about gay-rights in the inaugural address, a marriage. that is something advocates are
really looking for him to mention tonight. he has talked about a few others things, but primarily he mentioned equality for women, equal pay for women, social issues in that regard. but his focus tonight will be the economy. host: betty in pittsburg, kansas, on our republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to say, before an address such as the state of the union, we always have war and more war and threats of more war and threats of bombs and killing, and all these things happening. it is almost like we stir it up before a state of the union address or when there is a
holiday, you know that the gasoline will go up. what is the point? we need to get out of a privatized war where we cannot control companies -- corporate companies, taking more money, putting more money into the cayman islands for private use. and our soldiers are made up of the poor. they're not made up of congress' sons as they were in world war ii. host: do you plan to listen this evening? caller: yes. but you need to listen to what is not said as well as what is. host: how is what is not said a significant? guest: it will be interesting,
she was talking about war, i don't think we will hear a lot about foreign policy tonight. we will hear about the president trying to and pull troops out of afghanistan. and we will probably hear about north korea, since that happened today. that might change things a little. by peter will be a good number of things that he will not mention, which is interesting. guest: i have never observed a pattern of wars beginning in conjunction with state of the union addresses. one thing i will watch for this evening is the congressional black caucus, a collection of black members of congress, met recently with valerie jarrett on the hill. she's one of the president's top advisers, to discuss the state of the union to some extent. the question i have is whether he is going to address black unemployment specifically and things that will help bring that number down. i think that is what the congressional black caucus wants, but i don't know if that is when he's going to do. host:
host: kumar worked in florida and washington. jonathan strong has some experience at "roll call." here reported on environmental regulations. our next caller is from marietta, georgia, republican. caller: i will watch to -- i won't watch tonight because i think it will be the same as usual. host: what is the same as usual? caller: he will talk about how he will lower taxes and get jobs going but it is the same stuff. those kids up there for
pones to push his gun rights bill. you should leave that alone. guns don't kill people. people kill. he is screwing everything up, the way i look at it. host: will you watch center route bo's gop response? caller: i will watch that but i will not watch president obama. host: what about the rebuttal? caller: i will watch that. if you watch obama once, you know everything he is going to said. what do we know about what senator rubio bill say tonight? guest: they are calling him a new face of the republican party, young, very charismatic speaker. he has been very involved in the immigration issue. i think people will be looking to see how much he will embrace what president obama says and if he will be willing to go along.
the president will talk about places we can find common ground. will senator gore rubio talk in -- will senator rubio talk in the vein of common ground? host: how much of the republican leadership will influence what senator rubio will say tonight? guest: senator rubio as his own political interests at stake. in likely could, he will run for president in 26 team. -- 2016. host: what is the difference between what senator rubio will talk about and senator rand paul? guest: is this an alternative, is this a rival address? rand paul says no, we are on the
same team, so to speak. the thing to watch out for is places where the two speeches do not agree with one another. that will highlight that the republican party is not united on some issues. host: ohio, independent caller -- caller: i think the state of the union address builds the morale of each individual and the employment rate will come up because we are giving up because our taxes are being raised. they should deal with immigration because it has fallen back to september 11 and we are more open to who we let come in. the more we let come in, the more taxes will go up to support each individual that comes into the country. i think there is a few issues
they have to address with immigration, plus, getting our troops out of afghanistan, we will stay and rebuild so i don't see any sense in keeping our troops around if we are going to rebuild a country or a nation that has -- that has been at war with us. guest: i did not quite follow what he was saying in the beginning. there will be a strong emphasis on immigration and i think he talked about taxes going up. a couple callers have talked about how president obama has said the same things about taxes going top and yesterday, republicans started to talk about some of the things the president will talk about and they say it is the same thing we have been hearing for four years. but the good will be important for the president to talk about some old proposals but also new
proposals and how he will get more jobs created. host: our next caller is from jacksonville, fla., independent line. caller: i feel like the republicans are not telling everything they are doing. they want to cut social security and want to cut medicare but they are not telling you how they will do it. republicans know that they did not win the election. obama won the election and want to send money across the sea but i want to cut medicare. i feel like it is unfair to the people that need help in this country. host: what do you want to hear from the president tonight? caller: i want to hear him tell the republicans what they are trying to do is not going to work.
the republicans do not stand by everything. they are still trying to get rich off of their schemes. i want obama to talk about these things and bring them to light. republicans did not win the election. host: our caller from florida was a democrat and he wants the president to go on the offensive because he has a mandate. will we hear that challenge? guest: i think so. you saw a round of stories in the press that said obama will pay the back to the economy in the speech. then the white house cannot and said we're not pivoting to the economy. one thing the republicans harped on is that obama has pivoted to the economy over and over again for out his presidency.
it is almost an embarrassment when he says he will turn back to the economy because the recovery is still tepid. guest: it was interesting what the caller said because the president has repeatedly said the american people agree with me. i won. that is basically what he has been saying so every time he introduces a new proposal on gun control or emigration or a balanced approach to the comet, i won the election so people agree with me. i think we will see that message tonight. host: the headline of "the washington times." marysville, ohio, republican, welcome. caller: as he talks about rebuilding infrastructure and at the end of this month, we will face a debt ceiling once again. why is it that we send $700
million to cairo to rebuild their source systems? host: what else do you think about foreign policy? is there anything you want the president to talk about? caller: i more care about the infrastructure of this country and our jobs are being shipped overseas. i want to know what he will do to bring the jobs back. host: do you think we will hear concrete ideas in terms of jobs? the white house says there are four areas of interest -- manufacturing is one but infrastructure is another. jobs and how to build the economy are there. they say is a combination of all proposals he has tried to get passed in the four years and he does not had success. guest: i think the caller has the idea that a lot of our
federal spending is being diverted to foreign aid. most people are surprised to learn that it is less than 1% of the budget. if you look at federal spending, the entitlement programs are putting a tremendous amount of pressure on the rest of government responsibilities. it continues to take a greater share of spending. if you look at the spending over the last few years, all the cuts have come out of those other things, not social security and medicare. if we keep sitting back, you'll see less and less infrastructure and defense than the typical things you think government does and more money going back to people in the united states. host: we're not hearing from congressman paul ryan and other members of congress who hope to be leaders of the republican democratic party in the future. what are they doing? guest: a will be in the chamber and i think republicans will
probably be on their best behavior. if you remember the joe wilson moment, i don't think we will see a repeat of fireworks. that did not work out to their political benefit. they will be watching and preparing their response. speaker john boehner will be evaluating his next move. they will have to figure it out host: this is from twitter -- guest: i don't think it will happen. host: there is an image in "the washington post" -- it talks about the competition to get a seat on the aisles are members can shake the president's hand as he enters the chamber. why are the visuals of this important to members? guest: there are stories every year about how members have waited six, seven hours at some
of those people just want a chance to say something and shake his hand and others want to be on television. they want that moment for themselves. does the same group every year. guest: whole thing is a stage and it is political theater. does all symbolic just like the guests and the aisle seats. they want that photo of them shaking the hand of the president in their newspaper background to show that there is somebody here in washington host: jonathan strong and anita kumar. north bergen, new jersey, democrats line, go ahead caller: i am calling about the entitlements. how come the republicans are changing their line? that was one of their big things during the election.
host: do you want to hear that talked about tonight? caller: yes. guest: you were saying that they changed their minds? caller: they change their mind on everything. guest: some other republicans argue that the president has changed his mind about social security and i think all of those things are somewhat on the table. they talk about entitlement reforms and that have different ideas. i think you will hear some of that. the president was clear in december when he was working out a deal that did not happen with the speaker, john boehner, that he would be open to some changes for entitlements and i think you'll hear about that. that is part of the balanced approach he says he wants to have. guest: majority leader eric cantor just delivered a speech
that was billed as a re-branding and was the fourth time he has re-branded himself. host: how will sequester affect what is happening tonight? guest: i hate to that word. i try never to use that word. basically, congress and the white house made a deal two years ago that was never supposed to happen. there is an automatic spending cut across the board with the met -- defense and domestic that will go into effect and it will start in march unless a deal is made. the president is arguing we should postpone those spending cuts for a few more months while we try to work out a deal. this is basically for deficit reduction. the first amount is $85 billion
that will go into effect march 1 and everybody has a said the cuts will not be good for the economy. everybody is trying to figure out a way around the but they disagree how to do that. host: "politico" says -- jonathan strong, will the president used the word 'sequester?' guest: according to the preview i saw last week, i don't know if he will use the word sequestration. many of the house republicans who are really anxious to cut federal spending are
surprisingly willing to let these cuts happen. one reason is the very first span in battle after republicans took control in april, 2010, they secured about $30 billion in cuts. "the washington post"looked at those cuts in most of them were fake. the sense is that happens every 10 years, they spent $6 billion in 2010 and they will not spend money until 2020 but they counted the $6 billion in 2011 as a spending cut. you add up the totals of those fake cuts and this is why these republicans want these draconian cuts because they are real. they have lost faith that the deals negotiated by their leadership will be real cuts. host: why is this a significant backdrop for the speech? guest: cause the cuts are coming in about three weeks. it is the most serious issue that have to deal with. there are many other things on the table but that will be march
1 which is in a couple of weeks. i don't think the president will shy away from it. it was two weeks ago that he did an address to the nation in the daytime but he had a statement he had heard was that republicans are considering allowing the spending cuts to go through. he was very clear that they should not do that. he says he is not sure they can have a big deal right now he says they should have a small deal and the lay them for a couple of months. republicans and democrats say they are sick of postponing things but they keep doing it anyway. host: a republican caller is up next. caller: i am hoping tonight that obama will talk about finally doing some military cuts in places that have not been hotspots for 15 years like germany, japan, and italy and
finally actually making serious cuts to the war in afghanistan and the fact that we spend $80 billion per year on the straits of hormuz and that is more than the entire world combined spending on green energy. i also hope that we can put some of the money we save on the military into education here and jobs. host: thanks for your input. from twitter -- might we hear about climate change in energy issues? guest: i thank you will hear about it. energy is a big thing and the caller also mentioned education and i think you will hear about those two things. in the context of growing our economy is how you will hear it.
they are talking about vocational training and making college affordable and having pre-k and also that we will hear some things about clean jobs and clean energy. host: omaha, neb., independent, welcome. caller: thanks for cspan. my thing is -- first of all, i am a former marine. i am hispanic. i keep watching these guys talk about cuts and spending cuts and nancy pelosi -- i don't know what planet she is on, but she says there is no spending problem. i see the path of the grease and our country. it is california, new york, illinois, baltimore, detroit and
they are not addressing what is happening in those states. that is the reason i jumped from the democratic party to the republican party. dennis hastert dropped and earmark a bomb, a $10 million on his business interests in illinois. what is up with that? we are all in this together. the president says and then he gets his cronies waivers. host: is there anything the president could say tonight that would encourage you? caller: yes, a change in the presidency, the senate, and the congress. host: arthur just wants to see a
complete overhaul. what does that tone say? he is frustrated. guest: that is a big theme. he referred to the house minority leader talking about if we have a spending problem. she made some comment that america does not have a spending problem. if you talk to republicans, they say america does. it is what they are willing to i think the president will talk about some of those things. i don't think you'll get into specifics about different places around the world but i think he will say we need to cut some things but he is also -- he will never say we only have to cut. he will say it has to be a balanced approach with new revenue. host: niles, mich., democrats line. are you with us? one last time?
caller: hello? how are you doing? i heard mr. strong make a statement regarding the black caucus. and the high unemployment rate of black individuals. i thought to myself that this guy is as worried about blacks getting unemployment or being unemployed as i am worried about anything else of that nature. host: what do you mean about this guy? jonathan strong? caller: he was saying their priorities should be the presidential address the black caucus in regards to the high unemployment rate. of african-americans. host: should the president do that? caller: i don't think it is a republican issue. the republicans are not concerned about blacks or employment. for him to say that, i wonder
why he would say that. is that to bring up an issue to the president to where he has an issue? host: unstrung can give us more contact. guest: black unemployment is higher than unemployment for the rest of the country and i think that is something most people would say is a problem. i think it is a problem. the black caucus raised this to the president and they have raised it for a long time. they want him to work on it prett. host: many people advocate for things rather than saying plans come to fruition to guest: is a very vigorous process. so many people are involved and layers of review. it is a big deal in the policy
world. it seems to be a commitment for action for the next year. everybody -- is competitive because everybody wants to be in the speech. host: we have "cq weekly" they look at the second terms and they say they tend to be more difficult. how much of tonight's speech as a harbinger for the president paused second term? guest: have a hard time because historians and speech writers say if you have a second term, the first speech of the second term is generally the most ambitious and aggressive. you don't have another election
and you are free to say what you want. president obama has been more relaxed bowl last couple of months and you have another year or two to really come out of the gate and get what you want done. within two years, he will be considered a lame duck president and we will be talking about 2016. if he wants to talk about his ambitious goals, i think this is the night. host: houston, texas, independent. caller: 50 -- i don't think he has a year or two, maybe six months. we all have been hoodwinked to some degree because the republicans, when they are in power, each party in power opens up. the president can only issue policy. the others hold the purse strings.
who is holding the purse strings? if we don't take care of ourselves at home, eventually, how can we help others abroad? guest: i did not quite get the question. host: who hold the purse strings and who has the power? guest: congress holds the purse strings but whether they hold the power is a question for each of them to enter differently. the president wants congress to do with wanting congress wants the president to do it they want and they have to cooperate to get along. last host: week to cover the president's visit to leesburg, virginia where house democrats were caucusing. how much does the president consults with democratic leaders? guest: the president has not consulted very heavily with house democrats because they are the minority in their chamber. they are not as important as the senate democrats were they control the senate.
nancy pelosi has made a play to become more integral to the discussion lately and has made some progress in that regard. host: this is from twitter -- our next caller is from florida, good morning. caller: entitlements and what we will do in the next four years for trimming the budget is the question. the valley between republicans and democrats and across the country from california to new jersey, the rich versus the port -- what are we going to do to talk this out? there is so much of a spread between california and let's say florida or anywhere else. as far as the democrats and
republicans or anybody else in america. i have been unemployed for five years now and i expect action. host: what do you think about senator rubio sent you are from florida? caller: he is an upcoming republican. we have had three republican governors in florida lately so i don't know much about him. host: he has concerns about entitlements and unemployment. guest: we're sensing a pattern with some of these callers. it is the biggest issue and whether the president is pivoting back were still talking about it, it is the biggest bang on people's minds. what are they going to cut? both sides say they need to cut but a couple of months ago, we saw they had the so-called fiscal cliff deals and there
were special loopholes for special interests in the package. it is hard to cut when you sit down to do because everybody has a pet project. it will be interesting when they negotiate to see what they will come up with. guest: the picture on entitlements over the next four years -- if you want to seek cuts, i don't think there is a lot of reason to hope. the president has a few different areas that have been put on the table. one of those is called chain cpi and it changes as social security payments increase overtime with inflation. that would reduce how fast those payments are increasing. that is the only thing seriously on the table now. guest: i think the speaker had, but that idea and the president embraced it in december. host: from twitter --
do you think we will hear president george w. bush paused name in the speech? guest: think we are beyond that name. his first couple of speeches or about fixing things he thought president bush did badly or changing things. he talks about president bush when it came to foreign issues and some of the economy but i think four years down the road, we probably will might hear anything about that host: utica, new york, republican, welcome. caller: good morning to cspan and thank you for taking my phone call. i would really like to hear president obama roll up his sleeves and get to enter acted and see more of him in the congress and the senate. he has not had a federal budget in place in four years. it is causing a huge ripple effect in all the states of this country.
there is no federal funding and if there is no dollars like hud says no more money, there is no more money for education. because of no federal money coming to the states to help business as usual in our states and are counties and our villages and our cities across this country are all full -- are all full. i would love to have president obama interact more and let's stop having suspensions. they say we will not deal with the budget crisis now. we will wait until march to handle things. that is not the way that we can handle this country right now. all american taxpayers are having our own fiscal cliff problems and that cannot be no more. our taxes are going up, our
property taxes and food taxes and any kind of hikes of taxes is a challenge for the american workers. host: thanks for your call. guest: i think the sentiment that obama should roll up his sleeves and get to work with congress is one that many members of congress actually would agree with including democrats. he has a little reputation of not reaching out to and interacting with members of congress and a way that hurts his agenda on the hill. at the same time, one chamber has not done a budget for four years and that is the senate and they decided politically it does not make sense and now they have changed that and they will do it. host: what about reaching out to mayors and governors and cities. guest: he has recently been reaching out to people like that including some ceo's and
different groups of people i can inform his views and help support what he proposes. host: from "the washington times" -- our next caller is from mansfield, ohio, independent line -- caller: i just wanted to talk about -- we have a lot of private companies making money off of the war and many people don't know it. i would like obama to talk about what they are going to do to try to make our military not an economic trend for businesses like that. guys over there are fighting for our country and they are in harm's way. the company's common and you
have guys dying over there that are not in the military and i think it is sad. guest: that is at least the second call on that issue. i don't think you will hear a lot about it tonight. i think you will hear about cuts that need to be made from the defense department and domestic cuts but i don't think it will go into private companies and that sort of thing. it is something that people are don'tg uabout but i think that is a focus. host: if you think the state of address union matters -- on facebook, we have had over 253 comments. our facebook page will be active tonight as we bring you the state of the union here on c- span. we have a share and where you can share that you will be watching the speech this evening. robert, from carolina,
independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. it does not matter what the president says tonight because congress and the senate -- whatever he tried to do, they shoot him down anyway. we should fire everybody in congress and we would get something done in the united states. host: how would you change things? caller: i don't know how to change it to make it better but the president tries and every time he tries to do something, they shoot him down. i think nancy pelosi and the other guy, they need to get rid of them because neither one of them are doing their jobs. host: how important is senator rubio's address tonight and senator rand paul in terms of getting likability ratings of ratingsup a little bit.
guest: it would have to be a good speech to make a dent. many people like robert and many other people hold a very low opinion of congress and then you ask them about their congressmen. they say he is the greatest guy and is always there for us. every two years, a lot of these members get reelected even though the popularity is so low. host: we see snapshots of prior state of the unions and standing behind the president is the speaker of the house and the vice president. we see vice president joe biden right there. what is his role tonight? guest: his role is increasing. in the last three years he has been pretty aggressive and the president has charged him with all sorts of things. most recently, he is handling
gun policy. the president has asked him to take up all sorts of other things regarding stimulus spending and all sorts of other issues. he just helped out work out a deal with congress two months ago on the fiscal issues. everybody says he will probably run for president but i don't know. he definitely has a high profile. host: our coverage of the state of union starts tonight at 8:00 eastern time here on c-span and the president will speak around 9:00 eastern time and we will bring new centaur rubio's appear response. thanks so much to our guests, anita kumar and jonathan strong. they are both on twitter as well as writing on their company websites and you can find them on line. coming up next, we will get
lobbying rules of what congress can do when they are office and what happens when they leave office from the center of responsive politics. later on, we will discuss jfk de-emphasizing the mentally ill is impacting the mental health care system. >> a statement released earlier by the north korean ministry says its nuclear test today was a "self defensive measure that does not violate any international law" and "it was the first response to u.s. threats." they say they will continue with second and third measures of great intensity of united states contains -- maintains its hostility. this is a crucial step of north korea building a bomb small enough to fit on a missile capable of striking the united
states. the test is drawing immediate condemnation from washington, the united nations and others including the country's major ally china. reaction from president obama, calling the nuclear test provocative and a security threat. the united nations security council is calling a number is a meeting this morning. if they do, c-span will cover it. more on the resignation of pope benedict xvi. the vatican is a bulging that the pope has had a pacemaker for years and its battery was replaced a few months ago in secret. the vatican spokesperson says pope benedict had a pacemaker installed a long time before he became pope in 2005. he called the latest medical procedure routine. it was the first on the vatican has mentioned a papal pacemaker. he is resigning effective february 28 because he says he is to confirm to handle the burdens. he is becoming the first pope to
step down in six centuries. a vatican spokesperson says the pope will have no role in the selection of his successor. those are some of the latest headlines on cspan radio. >> i think we hold up brown as this amazing feat that we accomplished, that we rolled back segregation and then we look at what happened afterwards and we see how incredibly difficult it was, divisive in some ways, but you also have this incremental progress after that that was very frustrating to people. it is seen as a great victory but also, as a student of research, it is important to look at what we have not accomplished yet. when i looked at the segregation and how it was finally implemented 20 years later after brown was handed down, they
started bussing but the way these programs are set up still maintained white privilege. >> we chronicle of first and only federal lawsuit brought by african american parents to challenge school desegregation in "divided we fail." that is sunday night on book-tv at 9:00 p.m.. >> "washington journal" continues. >> welcome to "washington journal," let's talk about lobbying rules for congress. what does this mean? guest: i think people toss the terms iran without being specific as to the legal definition. lobbying is basically anybody tried to impose -- influence policy. they can do that by talking to members of congress or talking
to federal agencies -- any conversation, any interaction where the end goal is policy alteration, budget cuts, etc. could be defined as lobbying. if a university cents a group of students to visit with a member of congress, that would be defined as lobbying just as much as somebody from a major corporation sending a hired gun to talk to somebody in congress. host: what are the rules regarding current members? guest: anybody can visit a member of congress. if you are in prison, that might be a challenge. there are pretty strict restrictions on what they can take as far as gifts from registered lobbyists. the difference between a registered lobbyist and and un registered person is pretty important you can receive a gift from a lobbyist of any notable
monetary value. you cannot go out to dinner with them and have them pay unless you're married to them. there are all sorts of pretty itemized rules. the big exception is campaign contributions. you will see that lobbyists are among the most prolific donors to congressional candidates. host: here is a quote from roll- call -- k street, remind us what that says. guest:k street is over there and it is famously known as were most of the major lobbying firms have their offices. that has changed in recent years as people have moved to virginia and maryland that is the historic center of the influence
world in washington. as far as calculating time, it is equivalent to lobbying hours and legal billing hours. that is the way you calculate them. 20%, to me, i think of it as a monday. if you spend a monday's worth of your time on lobbying activity, that counts. if you don't, and if you are not actively seeking out contact with members of congress, don't need to be disclosed as a lobbyist. host: if you want to talk about lobbying, here are the numbers to call -- we're talking with sarah bryner.
the front-page story of "the herald's" -- what is he accused of and how does it relate to lobbying? guest: he is accused of basically favoritism for a campaign donor which is illegal. if he received a contribution from a donor and is doing something directly as a result of receiving that campaign contribution, that is what he is in hot water about. there's also something about prostitution, i think. there is a lot going on. i'm not sure how it relates to lobbying if the donor was not a lobbyist. were he a lobbyist, it might be clearer to establish that rules were broken because lobbyists have stricter restrictions on what they can do with members of
congress. host: what about travel? what about meals? guest: they can take no traps and lobbyists can -- cannot attend trips with congressional staff. they also cannot really arrange travel for members of congress. they might work for a place that has a non-profit status back and set up a trip but i cannot be involved actively in the planning and i cannot attend. host: you say they cannot have their meals paid for by lobbyists. guest: the to pick rule is that if an event is widely attended and food is served, it does not count as a male. -- meal. lobbyists and members of congress than can be at the same event.
host: we hear from john in herndon, va., democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i used to drive a taxi and i used to pick up lobbyists. i always ask them what they do and when they say imi lobbyist, i asked them what a lobbyist was. they say i help people do what they want for the congress. i told one gentleman the lobbyists are nothing but corrupting our politicians. when you see an ex-senator become a lobbyist, something is wrong with that picture. it is corruption and it's got to be stopped. you cannot make a good name for yourself by saying you are a lobbyist. that's how i look at it. host: did you na tel with digital any of the folks to get a ride to?
caller: yes, i did i always speak up myself because that is the reality. host: how did they defend themselves? caller: they say no. one gentleman said you are wrong. he says we helped some countries to have a direct talk with our politicians. i asked if he got paid and he said yes. that is my point. you are a middle man. guest: i think he brings up a pretty common perception of lobbyists. i think it was heather podesta who turned -- agree the terms of a scarlet "l". that is a curious term because there are so many people in washington who do what we
consider to be lobbying but a normal person would consider that but they don't have to disclose everything. they don't have to call themselves lobbyists and they escaped the sec -- lobbyists refer to themselves as people who are valuable additions to the policy process but the caller is correct there has been demonstrated evidence that cozy relationships can get out of hand, favre can be carried in a way that is not fair to american citizens and that is what is important to keep a watch on lobbying activity and make sure that is regulated. host: from a twister -- guest: the senate office of the secretary and the house clerk's office are the people who deal with most of the paperwork regarding lobbying. the justice department and office of governmental ethics in
the house are in charge of policing. recent reports by the omb have illustrated that that level of oversight is not particularly strong. there are not very many fines given poor people by letting rules. that is probably because it is really hard to track. there are not people following around lobbyists in congress. host: austin, texas, independent. caller: from the average person's viewpoint, it seems like an impossible situation that we cannot control. we vote for somebody and they do things we don't think are correct so we watch big country like china and korea put their influence for reported they seem to get the breaks. is there any way at all we can limit this kind of campaign contributions and things of this nature or make any improvements?
is there a way toward improving the politicians being more subjected to the people that elected them and said of the people that put the money up tax host: have you ever come to washington and talked to members of congress? caller: no i haven't but my dad was a state representative here in texas at one time and have a little bit of familiarity with people talking to him about voting for stuck but i have never been to washington so i cannot say i have persisted pettitte. i watch your show on tv and try to be a good citizen in texas. host: thanks for calling. guest: i think he is expressing a frustration that many americans feel. people in washington certainly does by virtue of being so close to members of congress have a special access. that is something that not everybody can experience. as far as ways of realizing actual change, i think there have been steps in the last 10-
15 years like after certain scandals that have opened up the curtains a little bit to allow us to see what is going on. there are certainly ways that regulations can be tightened so that loopholes ceased to exist. as far as campaign finance, that as a whole nother can of worms. that is subject to a whole different set of rules i think that is something that people are starting to see so much money moving into politics and it feels like avote a phone call to a member might be few tile. host: what about jack abrams often how did rules change after he got attention? guest: for one thing, senators and house members cannot immediately go and lobby their
colleagues after they retire. for senators it is stricter. that role was tightened that little bit after the abramoff scandal. there was i law passed in the early 2000's and he was the impetus behind that. his actions were. they also tried to make sure that you could not say that if i hire your staff member, will you do this on a policy. those restrictions were also tightens. host: guest: it is an interesting rule.
you cannot immediately leave office and then go back into the house and i would like a senator to consider a bill. you can work for a lobbying firm and talk to them about how to influence members of congress. it is kind of a loophole. four senators, it is two years between when you can be a senator and when you can go talk about your opinions. i think a 10-year rule would be a natural extension of that. i don't think that would probably gain a lot of traction with lawmakers. host: sarah bryner is a research director. here is a pie chart showing the revolving door of members of the 111th congress. these are leaders who left office two years ago and you can see 22% are lobbying a particular client, 33%, are
lobbying on behalf of a firm. guest: that as a common path and you consider already with former members of the 112 congress. joanne emerson from missouri took a position after being reelected with her largest campaign donor. that raised a lot of eyebrows century has not lost. she just decided she did not want to serve any longer. heath shuler also took a job with duke energy and it is likely that even if they don't actively register as lobbyists, they will probably engage in lobbying activity. host: let's go to bedford, mass., independent. caller: recently, "frontline"
and expos eye on the banking industry receiving money from drug cartels. they were subsequently fined. when this money gets tracked and gets into the hands of our elected officials through campaign contributions, is there any provision that the public can support in terms of calling this treason? it seems the only way this whole phenomenon is going to stop that is destroying our democracy is to have stronger penalties. guest: that is an interesting question. penalties are something that is not often given by many of these organizations overseeing campaign finance or lobbying. the have been cases and there are fairly substantial fines when they do happen but it is not something -- it is so difficult to track especially if the money is not disclosed virgos to improper channels -- those sorts of things are hard
to monitor. host: let's hear from sally, in alexandria, our independent line. caller: when you said that trips are considered gifts and gifts are not allowed, how is it bad newly elected legislators and their families are invited to israel on an all-expense paid trip for a week? how do they get away with that? guest: for israel, the organization that often sends members of congress to israel does so through the avenue of being a nonprofit. since they are not lobbying, the rules are different. they can send members of congress so long as they don't get a special discount and they fly in -- no more the business class to whatever country. foreign governments can also sponsored trips and so can
universities. host: tear from anthony in indiana, a republican column. caller: good morning. lobbying, to my opinion, is done mostly by some very powerful attorneys around this nation. my question -- how are these lobbyists controlled? what oversight committee controlled the lobbying through our congress and senate members? guest: lobbyist activity at the federal level is monitored by the secretary's office in the senate and the clerk's office in the house. any violation would be overseen by the justice department. host: from twitter --
guest: yes, these organizations have public website where you can see what lobbyists are doing this only applies to registered lobbying. these are people who have conversations with members of congress or not required to lobbying, that activity would not be monitored. host: tell us more about who the registered lobbyists are and do people skirt the rules a little bit? guest: there are lots of those. tom daschle is a famous example of somebody who used to serve in congress and he did not become a lobbyist but he is probably the classic example of the un lobbyist.
he will talk to his clients and co-workers about how they might go about communicating with a member of congress and that does not necessarily meet the criteria. on the other side of the aisle, newt gingrich is another example of a member of congress, former member of congress, who worked for an organization that had policy outcome interests but was never required to be disclosed because he did not meet the criteria. those people are everywhere in washington. you just would not be able to know about them were it not for the media. host: indiana, democrats line, go ahead caller: thank you for cspan and i would like to know what the supreme court-citizens united has affected lobbyists and our politicians?
host: before you go, what do you think about the issue of lobbying? caller: i think it is a legal way of bribery. host: have you ever been to washington to talk to a member of congress? caller: no, i may pour retired person on a limited income and i am lucky to get out of indiana. guest: guest: citizens united has had an interesting side effect. lobbyists are major campaign contributors and oftentimes they will get through their companies, threw themselves, the maximum amount allowed to a candidate in an election, $5,000 over the course of the primary and general alexian. now, you can see major donors in places like nevada and texas putting millions of dollars into
and other groups like that meaning the lobbyist money does not necessarily have the impact that it used to. lobbyist and i tend to give two super pac's because they are not trying to influence the presidential race so much members of congress and they do not tend to be ideologues on like someone who would contribute. host: sarah bryner oversees the data analysis and research collaboration for center for responsive politics. she joined in to douse an 11 and has also been a researcher on lobbying and the revolving door. she has taught political science at ohio state university. opensecret.org. they have a database for
lobbying. they spend billions of dollars each year to lobby congress and federal agencies. you can see the number of lobbyists and the total spending going back to 1998. back then, 10,400 lobbyists in an almost $1.40 billion being spent. guest: one of the interesting things in that chart is it shares the decline in recent years. where are they going? why is the number getting smaller? $3.20 billion is still a lot of money. just because the number of
lobbyists is decrease in doesn't mean the number of people trying to influence congress and agencies are declining as well. host: mass., independent. caller: good morning, libby. i watched the c-span all the time. i the question about grover norquist. i would like to know how he is able to lobby when the people he is lobbying are people who have signed his pledge. it seems like it is a conflict of interest. i would like for your guest to address that issue. thank you very much. guest: good question. but he is allowed to do so. there are no restrictions at that level on whether or not they can lobby members of congress. there are not many restrictions on who can lobby congress at all. certainly, a lot of interest
groups are concerned about the relationship between mr. norquist and members of congress who signed the no tax increase pledge. as far as falling within the legal bounds of lobbying, that's fair game. host: on twitter. guest: and that is one major reason why the restrictions came into being and with the senior members of staff. if you are a lobbyist for a small client, a city in a state like indiana. you may not be able to get the same level of access as someone who can afford to hire a former member of congress. host: what about people who are legal advisers and legislative consultants for enormous corporate salaries? guest: some of them are
lobbyists and they have to disclose if they spend a fair amount of their time lobbying. unless they're spending 20% on lobbying activity, that is undisclosed information and we would have no idea, but that is certainly common. host: frederick, maryland, republican. caller: i did not like the- pejorative term of a "lobbyist -- the negative pejorative term of a "lobbyist." i call my congressmen and i let them know what i want to do and i paid them money in contributions. being able to call your congressperson is an individual right. the fact that is and is -- interest groups or others raising funds, they do not
deserve to be labeled with such a pejorative term and treated in this manner. that is my comment. thank you. host: what would you prefer they be called? caller: what would i prefer dock? a democratic process. host: by the legal definition, are you a lobbyist or are you outside the boundaries of saying 20% of your paid time is spent working on issues? caller: i just picked up the phone. i make my living by other means. host: let's go to sarah bryner. guest: lobbyists sympathize with eric. since the obama administration
has put into effect more stringent rules in regards to what lobbyists can do with regards to the administration, i think they feel like they are unfairly characterized as the villains in these games. many of these people are professional attorneys and represents clients that i think people would sympathize with. what is important to also remember is that if you are a major company and you can afford to pay somebody $100,000 to work on your behalf, that's different than that has a different level of impact there and someone picking up the phone to call a member of congress. i think the two activities are different in that regard. host: you mentioned the obama administration changing the rules for lobbying. what are the changes?
guest: the change the guidelines, not the rules. he issued an executive order. his first executive order prohibited lobbyists from working in the agency or on an issue that they were interested in when they were in congress. the second forbade them from serving in high-level positions. he has granted many exceptions. cecilia munos was a lobbyist for the national council and she was granted an exception because he considered her lobbying activities to be different than someone who works for a firm representing 50 clients. they are not hard and fast rules by any means. as moving forward, it has gotten
even looser with regards to who is allowed. host: sarah bryner is with the center for responsive politics where she is a research director. on twitter. is it all self reporting? guest: other than the fact that they keep track of these things internally, there is not someone from the government standing over you and making sure you're not spending more than 20% of your time lobbying. it is certainly possible that people are not necessarily being honest. host: in miami beach on our democratic line. hello. caller: i think you are really whitewashing the issue of lobbyists. legislation. there oftentimes, a member of congress
who is supporting bill do not understand the consequences. we have had hundred those years of a corporate influence that is detrimental to the common man. we do not have that kind of influence. i am afraid of the law to close the loopholes because they will be written by lobbyists. host: we had an earlier caller who said he did not like the term lobbyist, that it was negative. caller: you are still light washing the issue. the major part of the lobbyist's role is to write legislation for the congress. all he does is rubber-stamp it and give it to congress. he has no idea what the consequences are and corporate influence of the lobbyist -- can you trust business to write our laws? host: how would you change it?
you said you do not trust those who write the laws. what would you do differently? caller: i would never have a congressman and be able to work for lobbying firm. that's one thing. obviously, there is a marriott of small things that you can do -- a myriad of small issues. i cannot give you any definitive. guest: a lifetime ban is something that gets tossed around and it certainly has its appeal. if you are a member of congress and you know that you will be courted by lobbying firms and major corporations when you leave office, that very well may affect the actions you take. there are restrictions and regulations about how much it can influence you, but this is .
i think lobbyists do not consider themselves to be a negative influence in congress. they will certainly say that if they get a call from a constituent or a handful of constituents that they matter much more than a lobbyist group coming to visit them and advocating for a position. that may be the case for high priority issues or things that make the news a lot like gun rights or immigration, but the caller brings up the point that for issues, particularly regarding contracts and things like that for defense companies, it's very hard for the public to be a counter voiced corporate influence. host: sarah bryner, our miami beach caller talked about former members, but what about staffers
getting to go into the lobbying world? guest: the rules for staffers are similar. a staffer who makes as much as 75% or more of a member's salary, they are subject to the same rules as members of congress. they cannot immediately leave their office and then go and lobby their office. they do, however, attract a certain cache in the d.c. area. clients and firms know if they hire a stopper, maybe not immediately, but in the fairly near term, they will be able to perhaps grant them better access. host: paul in gainesville, fla. caller: thank you for taking my
call. the obama administration is financially dysfunctional. we have five reasons why and five banks. goldman sachs, jpmorgan chase, citigroup, wells fargo. we have a total derivative position of $289 trillion. remember, warren buffett said that these are weapons of mass financial destruction. i do not care how much lobbying you do in the country or how you try to fix yourself with corruption, but the united states have been in a very difficult position and will raise -- will lose its reserve currency status. the economic people will believe that the united states is in the throes right now of economic this functionality which is going to cause us to lose the reverse currency status.
host: how does this relate to the issue of lobbying? the bank's lobby washington? caller: the banks have been lobbying washington for years. the money is used for toga parties come to pay off their bills why they -- while they figure out how to pay off the interest on this derivative position. jpmorgan chase just came out with a $54 trillion in derivative positions. this is a bank with $6.20 billion in assets york to sell everything they had. host: we will get a response about banking and lobbying. guest: they are a major lobbying clients. it's hard to say exactly but the money is spent on. certainly they became more active during the financial crisis, probably for reasons of survival. host: shirley in texas.
caller: the perception has become the reality that congressmen are corrupted by all of this. they go up there as a lawyer or a businessman and there is an allure to all of this. they will barter their souls to become reelected. and then when they do not leave office, they're rarely come back to their own home state because they become lobbyists like daschle, stenholmes, and the like. it gives the public the idea that they go up there, corruption takes place, and they are there to fetter their own nest and profiteer. that is the perception we have of congress now and why they are so hated. it seems like in lobbying, there
seems to be a lot of nepotism, wives, sons and daughters. it bodes bad for america. thank you. guest: from the moment a candid it decides to run for office until the moment that they lea ve office and beyond, they will be lobbied by powerful organizations, and nonprofits, and so on. it takes a certain kind of person to be willing to enter into the minefield. she is sitting on something that many americans feel. it is just very difficult to escape the web of the influence that awaits you when you enter congress. host: thought about nepotism.
"the washington post" did an article about relatives in the wake of the biggest lobbying scandal in decades, the abramoff scandal. 56 relatives of lawmakers have been paid to influence congress. more than 500 firms have spent more than $400 million on lobbying teams including relatives, according to a washington post analysis. this was published right before the new year and it includes bob corker. congresswoman emerson, heard two daughters have lobbied for a monsanto.rtartors and and then congressmen clay has been in office while his father
worked for lobbyists. senator harry reid has a son in law who has lobbied since 1999. guest: a lobbyist related to a senator cannot lobby in the senate unless the relationship was established more than two years before the senator took office. and the person was a lobbyist before that time as well. there are pretty strict rules. you cannot talk to the one you are related to. in the house, the rules are different. you can talk to any member of the house except the one you are related to. host: does that mean if you cannot talk to members of the senate, can you still talk to the house and the white house? guest: absolutely. there's no rule about talking to
other agencies. host: sarah bryner, research director at the core center for responsive politics, they keep coming in this morning. opensecrets.org. next, mental homeless in the united states and a closer look at the mental health care system. first, a news update from c- span paul radio. >> in a preview of tonight's state of the union, the associated press as saying that president obama will announce 34,000 u.s. troops will be home one year from today. 8:00n's coverage begins at p.m. eastern and the republicans response will be given by marco rubio in both english and spanish. abc and univision will announce today their joint venture for a news and lifestyle network called fusion. it will launch in the second half of this year.
five of the nation's biggest cable distributors have already agreed to carry the networked. the programming will focus on the issues most relevant for u.s. hispanics including the economy, immigration, and politics. it will be based in miami. former vice president dick cheney speaking on cbs's "this morning" saying it targeting tourists abroad with drum strikes is, in his words, "a good policy" even though he disagrees with most of obama's foreign-policy. he said president obama, "is getting paid to make difficult, difficult decisions peak of the president will announce 34,000 church will be home from afghanistan one year from today. the program came under scrutiny
last week during senate hearings during john brennan's nomination to become director of the cia. he oversaw many of the drone strikes from his washington office. they will be taking the denominations of john brennan and chalk a goal this week. holler later this week, meeting to discuss and vote the hagel nomination. you can watch it live on c-span 3. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> having observed a steady improvements in the opportunity and well-being of our citizens, i can report to you, the state of this old but useful union is good. >> once again, in keeping with time-honored traditions, i have come to inform you on the state of the union and i am pleased to import that america is much improved and there is reason to believe that it will continue.
>> my duty tonight is to report on the state of the union, not the state of our government, but of our american community. and i set forth our responsibilities, in the words of our founders, to form a more perfect union. the state of the union is from. >> as we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented danger is, yet the state of our union has never been stronger. >> is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong. >> tonight, president obama is in his state of union address with their preview program starting at 8:00 p.m. and the president at 9:00 followed by the gop response.
tonight on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome to the washington journal. our guest had a recent opinion piece in "the washington journal," 50 years of failing america's mentally ill. what happened? guest: president kennedy gave the first speech on mental health and retardation. his younger sister had been mentally retarded and dealt with mental dollars on top of its of he had a very strong interest. the kennedy family has always had strong stances on mental illnesses. host: community health centers are now a huge expanse of nightmare. what did kennedy intended to do?
what is the outcome? guest: it was done with the best of intentions. basically, he thought, and professionals thought, that people could be moved out of the hospital and do very well with or without medicine and using the community health centers they could prevent mental illnesses so the state mental hospitals could be closed. the idea was very humane. many of the people have done very well. those who have not been treated, roughly half, had come out and done poorly. host: what did president kennedy picture the model shifting to? guest: he thought we would only need mental hospitals in the only extreme cases. he did not understand, and the professionals really did not understand at the time, that diseases like schizophrenia and
bipolar disorder is our brain diseases. you cannot just talk it away with psychotherapy. it changes the chemistry in the brain and they need to be treated to control systems. they did not understand it at that time. host: we're talking about the evolution of the program to treat the mentally ill. if you would like to join the conversation, the numbers are nor screen. -- are on your screen. president kennedy had a goal of de-institutionalization america. guest: the institutions were overcrowded. they were not good places. until the 1950's we have no effective treatment to their holding places for large with the madness. it was not until the 1960 pocket
and had effective treatments that would control -- it was not until the 1960 inhofe's that we have effective treatments. host: what went wrong? he talked about how when was a noble goal. where was the failing? guest: it was at several levels. the professionals did not understand what was wrong with these people. the community mental health centers did not provide treatment for the people coming out of hospitals. they focused on less severe problems, marital counseling. you're attempting -- you were emptying out the hospitals with those who have a real issues and the community centers did not do the jobs. only 5% of those being treated were those who had come from the hospital. the program was a failure.
today, what you're looking at with the episodes of violence, these are the consequences of these policies put in place 50 years ago. host: our guest, in his article. are these americans under treatment are not being treated? guest: they are not being treated. it is very important to emphasize that there not more dangerous than the population if they are treated. the problems come from those who are not being treated. host: what is your suggestion for a solution? guest: a lot of things need to
be done. the system needs to focus on the mentally ill have a history of danger, a history of abuse. if we focus on the small number, roughly 1%, of the mentally ill who are dangerous, that would improve things enormously. we need much better federal leadership. we have had no federal leadership on this out all. the department of health and human services has no expertise armed this and they focus on mental health rather than mental illness. host: salem, ore., independent scholar -- caller. caller: i am mentally ill. disabled, technically, fairly adjudicated, an ex-convict, all the things were talking about. and it isngerous thank to jesus christ, yeshua.
host: have you had treatments? have you been on medication? caller: i have been on a myriad of medications in the past and i think they only do more damage in my particular case. this whole idea of a bipolar schizophrenia being in the brain, a chemical disorder, i have never had any doctor be able to actually prove that. i think they are just pulling our leg. your hope is in the bible. sick people with violent issues, that is all i have to say, thank you very much. host: we have someone who can talk about the chemical issues in the brain. go ahead. guest: i wish it was that simple. there are now over 200 studies of people with schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder, neurological studies before they had any medication and there is very clear evidence that these are brain diseases just like alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis. it's important to understand that because these are treatable in most cases. e.t: our gesuest is dr. fuller torrey and he is the founder of the treatment advocacy center. they support research on schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is and he is a professor of psychiatry at the university of the health sciences. define the parameters for us. you mentioned the treatment, the years of psychotherapy, talk therapy, family issues, etc. how does that differ from what you do? guest: mental illness is a very broad spectrum. what i focus on are serious
mental illness, the things we know our brain diseases. schizophrenia, scherzo a fit of disorder -- schizo-affective disorder. these are the ones that are on treated. here are the numbers of adults being treated. what do the numbers tell you? guest: they are inflated. all of us need help out one time or another in our lives and that
surprising. they like to inflate the problems so the problem seems bigger so congress will get more money. samhsa has not focused on the series mentally ill and they have not provided any serious leadership and that is one reason why president obama's response has been particularly weak. host: the list of programs include medicaid, medicare, supplemental security income, and social security disability insurance. our next caller in harrisburg, pa. caller: i have a nephew who smokes marijuana, he drinks, and he is on schizophrenic medication. how can i get him help? he has violent tendencies.
every time he's been admitted to the hospital, like 10 or 12 times, they have him for five days and they send him back home. host: what has he been admitted for? having psychotic episodes? caller: having psychotic episodes, yes. he laughs out loud. he says he hears voices. he needs help. caller: hearing voices is a typical symptom of a schizophrenia. about three-quarters of people experience that. this is what we're looking at all over the united states as part of the failed system. wheat closed down so many beds. 19 out of 20 that existed for the seriously mentally ill 40 years ago do not exist anymore. in pennsylvania, there are very
few beds available. they put them in for five days and they get them out because there are so many other people who need that bad. it is incredibly inefficient. if they put him on allocation commitment, which they do not years, he would have to take his medicine, it would keep him well, and he would not have to go back to the hospital all the time. smoking marijuana on top of schizophrenia usually makes the symptoms worse, similarly severe alcohol problems does not help any things either. host: our guest dr. torrey writes that the experiment on treating the mentally ill has failed. what could the states do better in your opinion? guest: 1 the federal government
took responsibility, the states, at least half of them, had programs to provide care for the people coming from the hospitals. when the fed's got involved, they stopped doing it. they said, we will take over, you do not have to worry. if you give the money back to the states and then held them responsible, which is very important, and set standards, we could not do worse than we are doing now. many of the state would be doing much better. host: karen from greenwood, indiana. caller: i have three comments. we have laws that say if you shoot someone who is a danger to themselves, if there a danger to themselves or someone else, you're supposed to report them to law-enforcement. in the example of aurora, the
shooter was reported to campus police. the communities need to do something. have your report someone or require someone to stay on their medications? think the, i don't medication works for me. i don't want to take it. smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol while on medications? we do not require or force people to mandate they stay on the medication and to follow that. third, families have to get involved. they have to be a part of the treatment. do they even participate other than to complain that there are not services available? like any other ellis, a family members need support. these are just three areas that i do not think we address in talked about openly.
host: have you had experience with this? caller: i had three clients that i did report to law enforcement who were in danger to themselves and one was a danger to others and herself. she was taking more medication than what was prescribed to her, showed up at the office, and i was concerned about she could have killed herself or someone else. i did not allow her to leave and i called law enforcement. she was stabilized and then released. there are oftentimes when we cannot report appropriately. why are we not using the list -- these laws? family members must be involved. guest: if you're absolutely right. in many cases, hippa laws are
being abused. one thing the government could do would be to amend hippa so it would be possible for the therapists and family to exchange intermission on what needs to be done. you're focusing on the laws and how they are used. they are state laws. the laws in indiana are different from kansas, etc. it is important for the family to understand the laws in their own state. there summarized in each state on the web site of the treatment advocacy center. www.treatmentadvocac ycenter.org and all the laws from each state are on there. law enforcement are now the major front-line mental health workers out there. they are confronting people who are serious the medical bill. i'm impressed they do as well as they do because they are not
trained to do this. this is another example where the mental illness system has completely trained -- failed and it is turning over the problem to jails and the local police. that's not the way it is supposed to be. host: dr. torrey mention the treatment advocacy center. it is a national nonprofit dedicated to eliminating barriers for the timely and effective treatment of severe mental illness. our guest is a research psychiatrist specializing in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and he is the founder of the treatment advocacy center. one comment on twitter. dr. torrey, the memory of many people is very negative of these state institutions. one model would you like to see in the future? guest: we need more beds.
they do not have to be long- term. they have to be long-term enough so you can keep someone for more than three days. institutionalizing someone with severe psychotic behavior is usually takes two or three weeks did we are only keeping them two or three days. we close down these beds for reasons because the federal government has to take over the responsibility. we closed down so many of are simply not enough beds to even stabilize people to get them back out into the community. host: how would you oversee at the state level to make sure they are run properly? you said you and want to see strop federal oversight. what if one state had a smaller scale approach verses a warehouse? guest: i would rate the states are on how they're doing with
severe mental ellis. i would have a system of federal money goes to people doing a better job and i would penalize people and the states not doing as good a job. fundamentally, i would hold the state's responsible, the governors, the legislators. let me give you an example. in an arizona wehre loughner was being considered for treatment -- host: the shooter in the tucson tragedy. guest: the state legislature cut the money that he should have been treated under by half. that was one reason why they probably did not hospitalize him. they had shut down those beds. the state legislature should be held responsible for that. host: our guest, dr. torrey, wrote an op-ed last week, 50 years of failing america's mentally ill. next caller, republican.
caller: think you ought to spread the word. we represent about 5% of the world's population. can you tell me what country is doing a very good job that we could try to emulate instead of trying to recreate the will? this is such a money-driven issue as far as the federal government's involvement. many times, their investments are in other areas and mental health is really the last person to even be considered for expenditures. this has been going on for so many years. what do you propose that the average person can do to make sure that these adollars can flow into the areas where they are really needed? thank you. guest: in response to your question about what country does a better job, most of the northern european countries, the
netherlands, scandinavia. if you're thinking of the developing a severe mental illness next week, he would be better drop in those countries than here, quite frankly. in terms of money, the federal government has provided almost no leadership arm this at all and you're absolutely right. there's no one in washington except for a handful of members of congress who have family members with severe mental illness. the department of health and human services has put no leadership are in this. the agency given the responsibility for it has almost anybody on their staff with any knowledge of severe medical illnesses. what can the average person like yourself do? you can let your members of congress know you are concerned about it. there is not a large lobby for this. unless the families speak out, not much will happen. host: is there a stigma
attached? guest: there is. many of it comes from the episodes of violence that come from on treated people with severe mental illnesses. if we can get these people under treatment company will have far fewer. half of these mass killings are coming from people with severe illnesses that are not treated. host: peter from kentucky, are you with us? go ahead. caller: my question is how the doctor disagrees with having mental health facilities and how they were run in the past and what they do which is offered a lengthy amount of time to a live-in facility to focus on
them directly instead of forcing this on a big hospital. i was admitted to a hospital for about three days and then put back out on the street. if i would have had the opportunity to go to a facility for a lengthy state to work on the issues are have, i was not given that opportunity. why is it focusing on not having that opportunity for individuals? host: our guest says that he wants to have people have that opportunity. how was your state paid for? did you have insurance? caller: it was paid for out of pocket, but my bill was not that high because it was only for a few days. host: ok. dr. torrey can explain more about his position. guest: i am not opposed where
people can be stabilized long enough to get themselves together. two or three weeks is about the average when i worked for eight years at a state hospital here. some take longer, some shorter, but two or three weeks is the average. what they did say is you do not need the large state institutions that we had 50-100 years ago. we had them in new york state with as many as 16,000 people in them. you do need to have some long- term beds that could be in smaller hospitals. there are a few people who do not respond well to medication that do need to be hospitalized long term but there are few and far between. host: dr. torrey, you mentioned new york state. here are some facts from the treatment advocacy center website the king at outpatient treatment.
what does assisted outpatient treatment resulted in? guest: in new york, it is called kendra's law. assisted outpatient treatment says that if you have a poor compliance with medication, are dangerous, substance abuse, a reason to think it will be danger to yourself or others, you can be put under a court order to take your medication. it decreases hospitalization markedly. it decreases harmlessness. it decreases episodes of violence and it saves money. new york is one of the few states using this. 44 states have assisted outpatient treatment on their books but only if you use it. six states including connecticut do not have it. host: here are some results of the new york kendra law study.
you can find more about that at the advocacy treatment center web site. they do not exit money from marketing or farce of a product. they take money from individual donors, foundations, and grants. guest: if we took my from the drug companies, we would be a shield for them. we promote treatment. the drug companies are
interested in making money. that is their business. we will not be a front for them. host: michael in north carolina. caller: first of all, not all schizophrenics are some kind of psychotic not trying to kill people. thanks to obama tinkering with the medicare and medicaid, i was living in hickory a couple of years back and i was trying to get help after me and my wife split up. you know, i called every organization and every doctor's office within a 100-mile radius and no one would see me because i had both medicare and medicaid. now that's wrong. i don't care who gets upset about that if you are a
democrat, republican, or what. that's a fact. i lived it. i had to move to get help. i find it outrageous because people like me had to live with this kind of situation where i had to look just to find help that i needed. this is egregious in our country. host: let's go to dr. torrey for a response. guest: you live in a state that has had the greatest deterioration in the united states. north carolina back in the late 1980's was ranked fairly highly but in about 2000, they have had a terrible record since then. i'm surprised anyone can get help there these days. it's among the states with the worst mental-health illnesses -- mental health in the united states. caller: i just have some brief comments.
i am a psychiatric nurse in florida going on 20 years and i have seen over, and over, and over again that the first line against this is law enforcement. i have law enforcement in my family. they've been a great job, but they are not informed on the criteria. as we speak now, i'm sure mentally retarded people, people on drugs, they're being put into the mental health system clogging the system, taking away from the people here really need the treatment and social workers, doctors, nurses, they are way overworked and essentially nothing is getting
done. the patience to get government checks come and go by cocaine, go out on the streets. they're suicidal and then they come back again, go get another bottle and sell it on the street. this system is broken. it needs to be addressed. host: i have a follow-up question for eight years. our guest recommends giving control at the state level rather than the federal level -- i have a follow-up question for you. do you think changing the funding would change anything? caller: i'm not familiar with the politics, but we primarily deal with the local county police and is just ongoing. i see the same patience year after year, week after week. they laugh at me. they play the system like a
piano. they know how to play it and they do it well. the system is broken. it needs to be remand told and rebuilt or looked out on the entire system level. guest: you're absolutely right. the system is broken. that is what many of us try to stress. no one is lobbying to try to fix the system out there. the very important point you raised is the fact that the law- enforcement community has really become the front line for mental health workers. i am continually impressed by the number of police and sheriff's who deal with mentally ill people and they're doing the best job they can. these people are mostly not trained to take care of the seriously mentally ill yet they are the ones being forced to because we have a broken system and we do not take care of them ourselves. host: dr. torrey, what would be an ideal situation? someone creates a disturbance
and the officer believes they may be having a schizophrenic episode. what would be the ideal response be? guest: the person should be taken by a police officer or sheriff to an emergency room, to be evaluated by a psychiatrist. in most cases, they would then be hospitalized, stabilized on medication. if the person had been through the system 14, 15, 30 times, then they would be put on an outpatient commitment order saying, we know you do well on medication and you become dangerous when you don't. therefore, we require you to take medication for a condition of living in the community. people do remarkably well on these systems. host: our caller did not seem to have ability to have faith in the local level. caller: -- guest: they have done
nothing for the last 50 years when the government stepped in. they cannot do any worse than the feds are doing right now where the federal money comes out and there is no responsibility. you have to hold someone responsible whether it is a county executive in california or florida or the governor in a state like vermont. someone has to be held responsible. that should be an issue raised at the time of elections, but that is not the case. host: a story in "usa today" on the suicide rate worrying the veteran the administration. people with ptsd coming home from foreign wars. guest: i'm not aware of the figures but i work with some of the researchers. it's a great concern. generally, the va a that a pretty good job. they have done a better job down
other state systems have gone, but we're clearly seeing a very marked increase in the suicide of people coming home from a iraq and afghanistan, so many to ramp up the system considerably from where we are now. host: new york state, republican. caller: i am near poughkeepsie. we have a lot of lives disease in this area. -- lyme disease. it can cause mental illness. there was a man on the glenn beck program is set 1/3 patients in a mental institution had lyme disease. both of my children have had it. my daughter has depression and ocd after having lyme disease
and epstein barr disease. she was not even diagnosed with lyme. not until i found aliterate doctor was sheik treated and it simply went away. it i shudder to think how many credible if they do not have the five, they're just dismissed and sent to a psychologist. the various medications are not going to help them. host: let's get a response since we're running late on time. guest: lyme disease can cause mental illness. it does not cause symptoms similar to bipolar or schizophrenic young. especially the have not had those symptoms before, they should be tested for lyme
disease because it is a treatable condition as you have found out in your own family. host: you point out in some of the work you have done that there have been commissioned over time, president carter, h.w. bush. what happened? guest: the both had no results. the carter's commission issued the support just as he was going out of office and basically called for more of the same. again, well-meaning people on that. rosalynn carter tried as velez she could but they did not understand nations -- the nature of the problem. the bush commission just said everybody should get well. a rather silly set of recommendations that went nowhere. i think it caused more confusion than anything else. than anything else. the holding